Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

[Shroom Man 777]

Is hauling dead or dying people now some great threat to American security, does it jeopardize Operation Arabian Freedom, thus necessitating sending Apaches to blow the everloving crap out of the vehicle? For all we know, they were sanitation services or a bunch of enterprising morticians from the local funeral home down there in Bakalakadaka Street.

Man, that would suck if you're bleeding and dying and some bystander's coming to bring you to the hospital for treatment - and then WHAM! a BGMJDAMATGMAMRAAMTOW kills the crap out of all those would-be paramedics. Guess Good Samaritan Laws don't exist in freedomized Iraq.

[Aaron]

I don't see how it's "easy to see how it happened" at all. These weren't a bunch of rookies at a dangerous Sadr City checkpoint reacting to a vehicle coming at them at high speed, they're soldiers in a helicopter gunship. You'd think people like that would think twice and professionally double-check their findings before indiscriminately hosing down a group of people with a chaingun. But no, apparently twenty seconds and some grainy black-and-white footage is all the justification one needs to kill a whole bunch of people.

It doesn't matter if you or I think that camera looks a bit like an RPG at a distance, these clowns up in the chopper are supposed to have been trained to recognize a weapon when they see one, as well as (I would bloody hope) recognize the plethora of objects that could conceivably be mistaken for a weapon for what they actually are. And if they aren't sure about just what they're seeing, they should vector in that group of guys they were talking to early in the video to take a closer look, instead of just blowing groups of people away.

Their actions suggest they are carrying weapons, the first guy I saw did indeed look like he had a slung rifle, one of them had something in his right hand that could be easily mistaken for a weapon, given the low quality of the video.

That said, this isn't a flat out war and further investigation could have been done.

Instead they're acting like aerial cowboys, seeing weapons where there are none and reporting gunfire where there exists none. The thought that they might have mistakenly identified the group of "insurgents" doesn't even seem to enter their decision-making process. If this is "in accordance with the Rules of Engagement" then the bloody Rules of Engagement ought to be changed, because obviously there's people flying about the Baghdad skies wholly deficient in proper threat identification skills.

*shrug* Their American, they've always been quick on the trigger.

[loomer]

But the van showed up, clearly doing nothing but helping a wounded man on the side of the road (with nothing that could be identified as a weapon involved), and the asshole gunner starts cursing, "C'mon, let us shoot. Fuck." It is hard to defend them when the conversations they are having make them sound like a couple of cowboys playing Call of Duty. "Look at those dead bastards," etc. Once the van gets involved it is no longer understandable, and bordering on sadistic.

Uh huh yeah, because an unmarked van showing up and policing up the site by removing bodies methodically is so unsuspicious.

Fuck's sake, Shep, they went for the wounded guy. You gonna tell me you'd leave a badly wounded man to die on the street if you were nearby?

[Dominus Atheos]

Actual footage starts at 2:45.

Wow, it didn't take long for the usual suspects to come out and start defending this.

Here's a question for those people: Can you give any reason why the heli should have been granted permission to fire on the van that was loading the wounded? Last I checked the Geneva conventions protected wounded soldiers and medical evac units.

Oh I forgot, the Geneva conventions and general laws of war don't apply to brown people.

Who is defending this, or are you just being hysterical? Not one person has said this was okay, or that the people killed deserved it, or that the cover-up was acceptable. Please point to one person who has defended what happened, or kindly shut your yapper.

You did you sociopathic prick:

How is this an atrocity? Atrocity implies intent (i.e., they knew these were civilians and journalists and killed them because of it). This is just a colossal fuckup.

As I said, shooting the van clearly violates the geneva convention, which makes it an atrocity.

But you know what? I'll concede the point if you agree that the pilots and whoever gave the order to engage the van should be brought up on murder charges, or at least manslaughter.

[Shroom Man 777]

*shrug* They're Iraqi, they've always been quick on getting ripped to pieces by airstrikes.

I also loved how flippant those pilots were when it turns out there's a whole bunch of dead kids from that van. Oh, shouldn't have brought kids to a war. And how nobody even bothered to note how there werent any guns there at all. Maybe the American soldiers were already so used to that sorta thing that they don't even blink or anything when they come across another bunch of poor shits who got blown away by a careless airstrike.

Fuck's sake, Shep, they went for the wounded guy. You gonna tell me you'd leave a badly wounded man to die on the street if you were nearby?

You would, if helping a badly wounded man on the street got you and your children's guts ripped to fucking pieces by Apache gunship fire.

[Dominus Atheos]

But the van showed up, clearly doing nothing but helping a wounded man on the side of the road (with nothing that could be identified as a weapon involved), and the asshole gunner starts cursing, "C'mon, let us shoot. Fuck." It is hard to defend them when the conversations they are having make them sound like a couple of cowboys playing Call of Duty. "Look at those dead bastards," etc. Once the van gets involved it is no longer understandable, and bordering on sadistic.

Uh huh yeah, because an unmarked van showing up and policing up the site by removing bodies methodically is so unsuspicious.

So the next time there's a report saying some Palestinians shot at the red cross or other medics we can count on you defending the Palestinians? I'll be looking forward to that.

[MKSheppard]

Man, that would suck if you're bleeding and dying and some bystander's coming to bring you to the hospital for treatment - and then WHAM! a BGMJDAMATGMAMRAAMTOW kills the crap out of all those would-be paramedics.

Actually it's 30mm M789 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) killing the crap out of them.

The M789 HEDP is an antimateriel and antipersonnel round. The projectile body is steel and is loaded with a 340 grain (.76 ounce) explosive charge and a spin compensated shaped charge liner that has a PD (M759) fuze. The cartridge case is aluminum. The fuze arms while the projectile is in flight and initiates the projectile's explosive filler upon impact. The shaped charge liner collapses with detonation that creates an armor piercing jet. Fragmentation of the projectile body also occurs that can produce antipersonnel effects within a 4-meter radius. Estimated penetration performance was interpolated from a graph contained in a gun system effectiveness report. This report reflected penetration in excess of 2.0 inches (50 mm) RHA at 2,500 meters.

[Fire Fly]

Is hauling dead or dying people now some great threat to American security, does it jeopardize Operation Arabian Freedom, thus necessitating sending Apaches to blow the everloving crap out of the vehicle? For all we know, they were sanitation services or a bunch of enterprising morticians from the local funeral home down there in Bakalakadaka Street.

Man, that would suck if you're bleeding and dying and some bystander's coming to bring you to the hospital for treatment - and then WHAM! a BGMJDAMATGMAMRAAMTOW kills the crap out of all those would-be paramedics. Guess Good Samaritan Laws don't exist in freedomized Iraq.

I was watching a BBC documentary and they stated that Taliban insurgents drag their dead away so that Coalition forces can't count how many were killed, presumably in addition so that they aren't ID'd as well.

[Shroom Man 777]

@ DA:

Nah, Red Cross has designated marks distinguishing them from friend or foe. I think it'd be okay though if you just shot at some plain-clothes people who're just bystanders trying to help some dying person. If you can't tell if it's some average guy helping some injured person, or some evil guy helping some injured person, then you might as well kill that guy helping some injured person and his children too. You can't be sure enough, right? *shrug* After all, it is war and these things do happen.

[MKSheppard]

So the next time there's a report saying some Palestinians shot at the red cross or other medics we can count on you defending the Palestinians? I'll be looking forward to that.

Considering the Palestinians actually use marked red crescent vans to transport munitions and fighters; I'm not sure you want to die on this hill.

[Losonti Tokash]

Uh huh yeah, because an unmarked van showing up and policing up the site by removing bodies methodically is so unsuspicious.

Uh huh yeah, because a van driving up and trying to pick up a single guy bleeding to death and immediately driving away is "policing the site" and "removing bodies methodically."

[Mr. Coffee]

You did you sociopathic prick:

How is this an atrocity? Atrocity implies intent (i.e., they knew these were civilians and journalists and killed them because of it). This is just a colossal fuckup.

Um, no he didn't, you illiterate fucking retard. He flat out states it was a "colossal fuck up". What he does say is that it wasn't an atrocity (it wasn't), just a massive fuck up on the part of the guys in the helecopter. Maybe if you weren't in such a hurry to jump someone's ass for supposedly defending this incident, slowed the fuck down, and took time to actually read shit you'd have caught that.

But you're a fucking retard, so who cares.

As I said, shooting the van clearly violates the geneva convention, which makes it an atrocity.

I don't see any indication that the van was an ambulance. No red cross, no red cressant, so it's not a recognized aid vehicle either... Can you name the specific part of the Geneva Convention that was violated there?

Take your time, I'll wait...

[Shroom Man 777]

But what IS wrong with removing bodies methodically? Why is it an action that constitutes some threat or whatever that requires you to engage and kill the enemy before he removes the bodies? It's like finding an unarmed enemy soldier who's shitting in some latrine, and shooting him anyway.

[Coyote]

Things "clearly look like NOT weapons" when you are in a comfortable, secure armchair-quarterback mode at your innernet connection. Things are not so clear when you're in a zone where there are supposed to be people packing weapons, you are expecting just exactly that, and you have to look at them while also keep an eye out for all the places around where a Muj with a rocket could try to take a potshot at you while you're concentrating. In the back of your mind is the notion that maybe the whole event is something for you to look at while a guy draws a bead on you.

Sitting in front of your monitor, Cheetos-orange fingertips flying across the keyboard, with only this to worry about, takes a lot of pressure off.

But again, nothing is being excused. True, ambulances were suspected of being used as troop and weapons transports in both Palestine and Lebanon recently, but better ROE and EOF discipline should be drilled into everyone's heads over there since this sort of carelessness makes everyone else's jobs harder... and only gives propaganda to the enemy.

[Losonti Tokash]

But what IS wrong with removing bodies methodically? Why is it an action that constitutes some threat or whatever that requires you to engage and kill the enemy before he removes the bodies? It's like finding an unarmed enemy soldier who's shitting in some latrine, and shooting him anyway.

Shroom, it's only against the rules for the terrorists to kill first responders. It's okay for the coalition to do it cause they're the good guys, right?

[Aaron]

*snip*

Keep in mind that your not supposed to shoot wounded people either. I vaguely recall from GC lectures that only "marked" vehicles are entitled to safe passage (and that it can be revoked with appropriate warning), so they may well be in the clear legally; for that. They still shot up a wounded guy though.

[MKSheppard]

Shroom, it's only against the rules for the terrorists to kill first responders. It's okay for the coalition to do it cause they're the good guys, right?

There's a reason you know, why military ambulances have camouflage defeating markings all over them; consisting of white squares with red crosses in them at just about every angle possible.

[Coyote]

But what IS wrong with removing bodies methodically? Why is it an action that constitutes some threat or whatever that requires you to engage and kill the enemy before he removes the bodies? It's like finding an unarmed enemy soldier who's shitting in some latrine, and shooting him anyway.

An unarmed enemy soldier shitting in a latrine may not be much of a target, but it is still a target. For example, in the Geneva conventions, you are allowed to shoot at paratroopers who are coming down in parachutes, because they are parachuting for the purpose of attacking you. You are not, however, allowed to shoot at a pilot who has bailed out of his damaged airplane, because he is not coming to attack you, but trying to perform self-evacuation from a personal danger (the burning, plummeting, now-useless aircraft).

You can shoot at a headquarters even though the people inside may have their weapons stored in a neat, inspection-ready arms rack and they are carrying nothing more dangerous than coffee mugs as they sit in front of their computers. But until they surrender or are unconscious, they are still valid targets.

[Mr. Coffee]

*snip*

Keep in mind that your not supposed to shoot wounded people either. I vaguely recall from GC lectures that only "marked" vehicles are entitled to safe passage (and that it can be revoked with appropriate warning), so they may well be in the clear legally; for that. They still shot up a wounded guy though.

Still not an atrocity, Corporal K. Dumbass keeps tossing the word "atrocity" around like a CNN talking head that things every car crash is a "tragedy". Fucked up that it happened, but still not an atrocity.

[MKSheppard]

They still shot up a wounded guy though.

I've watched a lot of other apache killcam videos; and this is basically SOP. Keep firing until all targets are neutralized and incapable of offering resistance. It only takes someone's last dying breath to aim a MANPAD or RPG at you.

[Losonti Tokash]

Shroom, it's only against the rules for the terrorists to kill first responders. It's okay for the coalition to do it cause they're the good guys, right?

There's a reason you know, why military ambulances have camouflage defeating markings all over them; consisting of white squares with red crosses in them at just about every angle possible.

And the concept that most first responders are in plainclothes and using a personal vehicle, if any, just never occurred to you? I mean, I sure don't recall claiming they were an ambulance, or even trained medical personnel at all. They were just trying to help a hurt man lying in the street. So a helicopter blew them to hell.

[Aaron]

Oh I don't consider it an atrocity. A mistake, yeah and a horrible one at that. If they had set out with the intention of shooting up a hospital or something then yes; atrocity.

[Siege]

Their actions suggest they are carrying weapons, the first guy I saw did indeed look like he had a slung rifle, one of them had something in his right hand that could be easily mistaken for a weapon, given the low quality of the video.

That said, this isn't a flat out war and further investigation could have been done.

That last sentence is pretty much my point: if this scene had gone down in the middle of the Second Battle of Fallujah or something then fair enough, it'd still be a horrible mistake but mistakes can and do happen. But this wasn't Fallujah, '04. This was just another day in Baghdad. There was no battle going on, there was no gunfire, there weren't even any weapons, and "suggests" and "look like" frankly aren't (or rather, as it appears, shouldn't be) good enough reasons to kill folks by the dozen. They weren't under fire, neither were any other troops in the area, the "insurgents" weren't scrambling for cover so there was clearly time for these assholes to make sure they knew what they thought they saw was actually real before they opened up with the M230.

All this crap about "well it's a combat zone" smells like a load of bollocks to me. It's not a combat zone, no-one is shooting at you, and there will be innocent people on the ground carrying bags or tripods or garden hoses over their shoulder, so you ought to bloody well better make double-damned sure you know what you're shooting at. If this had been a Dutch AH-64 gunning down twelve or so innocent Afghanis I'd expect both pilot and gunner to be on their way home for their court-martial long before this video has time to leak, but since no such thing is happening here apparently this is sort of incident is acceptable to the US Army. Hearts and minds, indeed.

[Aaron]

I've watched a lot of other apache killcam videos; and this is basically SOP. Keep firing until all targets are neutralized and incapable of offering resistance. It only takes someone's last dying breath to aim a MANPAD or RPG at you.

Yeah, I know.

That last sentence is pretty much my point: if this scene had gone down in the middle of the Second Battle of Fallujah or something then fair enough, it'd still be a horrible mistake but mistakes can and do happen. But this wasn't Fallujah, '04. This was just another day in Baghdad. There was no battle going on, there was no gunfire, there weren't even any weapons, and "suggests" and "look like" frankly aren't (or rather, as it appears, shouldn't be) good enough reasons to kill folks by the dozen. They weren't under fire, neither were any other troops in the area, the "insurgents" weren't scrambling for cover so there was clearly time for these assholes to make sure they knew what they thought they saw was actually real before they opened up with the M230.

All this crap about "well it's a combat zone" smells like a load of bollocks to me. It's not a combat zone, no-one is shooting at you, and there will be innocent people on the ground carrying bags or tripods or garden hoses over their shoulder, so you ought to bloody well better make double-damned sure you know what you're shooting at. If this had been a Dutch AH-64 gunning down twelve or so innocent Afghanis I'd expect both pilot and gunner to be on their way home for their court-martial long before this video has time to leak, but since no such thing is happening here apparently this is sort of incident is acceptable to the US Army. Hearts and minds, indeed.

The sad reality is that the Yanks have always played fast and loose with the law and the ROE, and is a big part of why their allies consider them a liability after the shooting war is done.

[loomer]

Actually, there reportedly were gunshots in the area. That was why the heli was called in.